Re: f2f planning - Issue 63

At the event mentioned before
http://www.swib09.de/programm.pdf
today CIDOC CRM has been presented in detail, though it seemed that a SKOS
application is not available yet.
See also the tweets http://twitter.com/search?q=%23swib09 , with a fair
amount in English.

One presentation was about the Europeana project, which among others works
on SKOS-encoded information for providing thesaurus- or faceted-browsing
search functionalities. I would recommend you to contact Stefan Gradmann
stefan.gradmann@ibi.hu-berlin.de if you want to get more details and the
state of implementation.

Best,

Felix


2009/11/25 Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>

> There are (at least) a couple of such initiatives in the cultural
> heritage/archaeology community.  One is STAR (
> http://hypermedia.research.glam.ac.uk/kos/star/).  Generally, there's a
> fair amount of interest in using SKOS to refine data expressed using CIDOC
> CRM in RDF.
>
> There's also been a lot of interest in LCSH expressed in SKOS (Library of
> Congress Subject headings), but I'm not personally aware of applications.
>
> #g
> --
>
>
> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>
>> Great. Can you give examples of applications that consume SKOS content
>> and do something useful with it? At CC we're doing something like this
>> (using NLM MeSH headings in SPARQL queries), but would like to hear
>> about other instances.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:26 AM, Felix Sasaki
>> <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de> wrote:
>>
>>> An example for supporting this point: SKOS can be used to represent a
>>> thesaurus in an RDF-based way. A thesaurus can be used e.g. to enhance
>>> full-text search ("use all terms which are broader than my search term").
>>> In
>>> XQuery full text search, you are able to use the same kind of resource (a
>>> thesaurus) with the same purpose (enhance search), but not necessarily
>>> relying on RDF for thesaurus representation.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Felix
>>>
>>> 2009/11/23 Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
>>>
>>>> I'm with you...  RDF per se has little to do with models of anything,
>>>> any more than XML or ASCII does; it's a way of *expressing* models
>>>> syntactically, which is the easy part.  (RDF semantics is also helpful
>>>> discipline, but also brutally neutral.) You still have to create
>>>> vocabularies (ontologies) that do what needs to be done.
>>>>
>>>> The consumer use cases are the interesting part of the story - linked
>>>> data isn't much good if no one's using it - and I think they should be
>>>> sought out and/or developed.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * Metadata model: what is the "data model" for typical metadata
>>>>>> applications -
>>>>>> the datatypes of the endpoints?
>>>>>> The model is RDF.  We recommend that all metadate be encoded as RDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>> RDF 'has' a data model -- things you can say. The question remains, I
>>>>> think,
>>>>> whether it is useful, productive, and appropriate to allow "anything
>>>>> you
>>>>> can
>>>>> say in RDF" to also be said in metadata.  I think the requirements for
>>>>> metadata processing may mean that some relations have a much more
>>>>> restricted
>>>>> domain.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Metadata in other formats e.g. RDDL, should be translatable into RDF,
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> encapsulated in a RDF wrapper.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It's going the other way that is also important. Imagine an audio
>>>>> player
>>>>> (WinAmp, iTunes,  Windows Media Player) in which you had not just title
>>>>> and artist and duration, and so on, but allowed any of those to be
>>>>> arbitrary RDF assertions. I think the media player would suffer if it
>>>>> weren't
>>>>> possible to restrict the data model of "artist" to be arbitrary rather
>>>>> than the dc:creator.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  * Metadata serialization: how can metadata be encoded in a
>>>>>> representation system,
>>>>>> be it RDF or something else
>>>>>> Metadata is serialized using standard RDF serialization.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, RDF is one serialization.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  * Metadata vocabularies:  what are appropriate vocabularies for
>>>>>> describing various
>>>>>> media objects and network services? What is the process by which new
>>>>>> vocabularies
>>>>>> can or should be developed, described, extended or changed?
>>>>>> There exist RDF vocabularies for several domains.  Others need to be
>>>>>> created.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's easy to create vocabularies; the real difficulty is
>>>>> vocabulary
>>>>> mapping and also the scalability of metadata when merging metadata from
>>>>> multiple
>>>>> sources.
>>>>>
>>>>>  * Metadata linking: What are the various ways in which metadata can be
>>>>>> associated
>>>>>> with "data" or other resources? Link relationships, protocol elements,
>>>>>> mechanisms
>>>>>> for embedding metadata in various kinds of data?
>>>>>> I think this is issue 62:
>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/62
>>>>>>
>>>>> Issue 62 focuses on one way of linking; I don't think it is or should
>>>>> be
>>>>> the
>>>>> only way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Larry
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>